acoliver@apache.org wrote:
> +1 code is good.
+1 to accepting and +1 to aco's statement.
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 29, 2005, at 10:24 AM, Peter Edworthy wrote:
>>
>>> 0 - Not got time to check the code at the moment
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> 2) I normally would put a 3 day review period, but this code is
>>>>>> small
>>>>>> and I want to use this to test the process
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> Can we go for an any objections version then ?
>>
>>
>> I don't understand the question. If there are objections, feel free
>> to state.
>>
>> Note that this isn't a vote on making a technology decision, but only
>> a vote on whether or not we want to bring this code into our svn
>> repository. I'm sorry I wasn't clear about that.
>>
>> Again - this is about us bringing the code in, not making a
>> commitment to use it in the project, or any judgement about it's
>> technical feasability or usefulness. that's a broader discussion.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Or prohaps only email Geir?
>>
>>
>> Anything that is discussion about the technology should be on the dev
>> list. Any concerns that one would be uncomfortable discussing in
>> public that are relevant to the project as a whole should go to
>> harmony-ppmc, and if it's a personal issue - maybe you wish to call
>> me a putz or something - either personal or /dev/null :)
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Just seems like a lot of mail
>>>
>>> Pete
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
--
Stefano.